PDA

View Full Version : Evolutionists will "find" martian organisms?



Colin Robinson
2011-Oct-24, 04:20 AM
I think all the regulars here know about theories that NASA is hiding evidence of aliens. But here is a website that says the opposite -- the claim is that bad guys at NASA actually intend to "find" dubious evidence, to further an evolutionist agenda...

http://www.fixedearth.com/Mars%20Missions%20I.htm

Please note, I am not an advocate of this CT.

I am linking to the website to promote critical discussion, in accordance with rule #11...

tnjrp
2011-Oct-24, 06:53 AM
You have there a woobery website (I'd use a stronger term but this is a clean language site) claiming several actually nonrelated things (conjoined solely by their pet beliefs) with zero evidence. At a mere glance, they have at least two different subjects there: that spaceflight is a hoax and that evolution is false. Which one are we to critically discuss?

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-24, 09:02 AM
I am linking to the website to promote critical discussion, in accordance with rule #11...

That site is so ridiculous I'm not sure what to discuss. Though I guess some of the moon hoax or other alien CT claims (rods, anyone?) are just as bad. Some points:


All of the tens of thousands of man hours put into the Mars Missions...all the billions of dollars...all the hype from every pore of the media establishment...boils down to one overriding agenda. That one agenda is inseparable from the belief that Mars has been evolving for some four billion years and, like the Earth, it is part of an evolutionary process that has created all that exists in the universe over some 15 billion years.

A common issue with a certain subset of creationists: All science is apparently "evolutionism" whether or not it actually has anything to do with evolution. It doesn't matter if it is geology, physics, or biology - it's still "evolutionism."



This ceaseless Bible- bashing quest to establish extraterrestrial evolutionism as the end-all explanation of how the Universe, the Earth, and Mankind came to be is right on course with the Mars Missions.

Aside from the false issue of "evolutionism," it sounds like this fellow would consider almost all of science to be "Bible bashing."


The emphasis now is focused on keeping everyone believing in those fantasies about billions of galaxies that are billions of light years away and are themselves constantly "evolving", i.e., that they are producing new stars and planets all the time which are being seeded with theoretical bacteria by theoretical comets.

So galaxies are fantasies. I looked around the site a little, and apparently this fellow is a Geocentrist. Maybe he thinks all those images of galaxies are just lights on a crystal sphere?



Meanwhile, where are those TV pictures of the Rovers we see on the bleak Martian landscape --tracks and all--coming from?? Those photos from a distance can’t come from the vehicles themselves.

Unfortunately, he doesn't post any of the images he's referring to. I don't recall any images "from a distance that can't come from the vehicles themselves." Though I suspect he didn't do the five minutes of research it would take to learn about the pancam that sits a little above the main body of the rover. (http://marsrover.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_instru_pancam.html)

Mellow
2011-Oct-24, 09:18 AM
I like their use of the colours tag in their HTML, classy.... for 1989

Nowhere Man
2011-Oct-24, 10:05 AM
Meanwhile, where are those TV pictures of the Rovers we see on the bleak Martian landscape --tracks and all--coming from?? Those photos from a distance canít come from the vehicles themselves. Unfortunately, he doesn't post any of the images he's referring to. I don't recall any images "from a distance that can't come from the vehicles themselves." Though I suspect he didn't do the five minutes of research it would take to learn about the pancam that sits a little above the main body of the rover. (http://marsrover.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_instru_pancam.html)
He could mean the shots of the rovers' tracks taken from the Mars orbiters. If so, this is one of the few correct things he's said -- except that they're not TV pictures.

Fred

tnjrp
2011-Oct-24, 10:13 AM
Hmm. Has NASA sometime made the very basic error of passing images taken from orbiters as images taken by rovers?

captain swoop
2011-Oct-24, 10:21 AM
Colin Robinson What Conspiracy are you proposing?
This is not a site for a general discussion on the shortcomings of some religious website you found.
Please take some time to read the rules for posting to the CT Forum linked at the bottom of this post

Strange
2011-Oct-24, 10:29 AM
I like their use of the colours tag in their HTML, classy.... for 1989

I think these types do that so you tell at a glance that it is not worth reading.

Colin Robinson
2011-Oct-24, 11:15 AM
Captain Swoop

I linked to the website, not because it is religious (although it is), but because it advocates a specific space-related conspiracy theory -- the theory that NASA people plan to stage a "discovery" of bacteria on Mars in order to advance an evolutionist and anti-Christian agenda.

Before doing so, I did have a look at the guidelines at the top of this forum. Paragraph 11 of the document
Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters) states:


11. The CT forum may also be used for the critical analysis of websites that advocate specific astronomy and space related conspiracies. Such discussions should be limited to the specific claims of those websites and the scientific arguments against those claims. Such discussions are not an excuse to bash the claimants of such conspiracies.

I thought that a critical discussion of the conspiracy claim in the website would be on-topic here as covered by the above paragraph. Or have I misunderstood paragraph 11?

CJSF
2011-Oct-24, 12:23 PM
Captain Swoop

I linked to the website, not because it is religious (although it is), but because it advocates a specific space-related conspiracy theory -- the theory that NASA people plan to stage a "discovery" of bacteria on Mars in order to advance an evolutionist and anti-Christian agenda.

Before doing so, I did have a look at the guidelines at the top of this forum. Paragraph 11 of the document
Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters) states:

1. The CT forum may also be used for the critical analysis of websites that advocate specific astronomy and space related conspiracies. Such discussions should be limited to the specific claims of those websites and the scientific arguments against those claims. Such discussions are not an excuse to bash the claimants of such conspiracies.


I thought that a critical discussion of the conspiracy claim in the website would be on-topic here as covered by the above paragraph. Or have I misunderstood paragraph 11?

I have to (at least to this point) agree with the OP. This falls under rule 11, does it not?

CJSF

Swift
2011-Oct-24, 01:04 PM
All,

Let's drop the meta-discussion about where in the rules this thread sits. For the moment, please continue the discussion about the OP. The moderators will discuss the rules question. Thanks,

Swift
2011-Oct-24, 01:06 PM
(moderator hat off)

Evolutionary biologists need no data from Mars or NASA to "further an evolutionary agenda". The theory of evolution is completely proven by evidence collected on Earth.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-24, 03:49 PM
Interesting thing is that he seems to equate universal panspermia1 with evolution, though universal panspermia is a (theist) attempt at getting around abiogenesis and normally considered utter bunk by general science.


1) that all life everywhere in the universe has a common origin, has always been there and/or was created at most once.

korjik
2011-Oct-24, 03:56 PM
(moderator hat off)

Evolutionary biologists need no data from Mars or NASA to "further an evolutionary agenda". The theory of evolution is completely proven by evidence collected on Earth.

I dunno. I dont think evolution is any more proven a theory than gravity is...

:)

Strange
2011-Oct-24, 03:59 PM
the claim is that bad guys at NASA actually intend to "find" dubious evidence, to further an evolutionist agenda...

You mean ... it will be a plant :)

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-24, 04:54 PM
I dunno. I dont think evolution is any more proven a theory than gravity is...

:)
And NASA is in a battle with both.

Swift
2011-Oct-24, 05:27 PM
I dunno. I dont think evolution is any more proven a theory than gravity is...

:)
Gravity - Its not a good idea, its the law!
:D

loglo
2011-Oct-24, 06:15 PM
You mean ... it will be a plant :)

They planted a bug to show that bugs aren't planned? :)

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-24, 06:16 PM
Gravity - Its not a good idea, its the law!
:D

"Kumbaya! I have gravity poisoning!"

Eek the cat.

Noclevername
2011-Oct-24, 06:45 PM
Interesting thing is that he seems to equate universal panspermia1 with evolution, though universal panspermia is a (theist) attempt at getting around abiogenesis and normally considered utter bunk by general science.


1) that all life everywhere in the universe has a common origin, has always been there and/or was created at most once.

I think it's an attempt to have his cake and eat it too... If life is found, he can say it "proves" his CT, and if life isn't found he can say "Their evil plot failed, life is only here on Earth where god put it!"

tnjrp
2011-Oct-25, 06:06 AM
I've been personally served a prediction from a fairly prominent member of the creationist crowd that life indeed may be found on Mars - but it's Earth life that's been taken there along with the probes. It only takes one step to go from that to the CT displayed by the wooists behind the OP link.

On the subject of panspermia, universal or not, I don't think fundamentalists are particularly enamoured of it these days. All the cases I've come accross are exceedingly fond of pointing out that no life has been found elsewhere in the universe, which of course proves their favourite magic skyguy put it here and just here. Of course there is also the "universe is fine-tuned for life" crowd but even they don't seem to talk about panspermia so I generally assume they believe all that fine-tuning they harp about has been necessary to produce a very rare Earth.

Drunk Vegan
2011-Oct-25, 10:22 AM
The thing I find most ironic about this page is that he espouses a "fixed Earth" cosmology in which the Earth never moves, the Sun, planets, and stars all swoop around in circles around Earth. He seems to think most scientists have been "duped" into believing a heliocentric model.

But his entire fantasy revolves around probes sent to Mars and other bodies in the solar system using navigational systems that assume, correctly, that those objects are circling the Sun. And in the case of probes returningto Earth, an added assumption that the Earth won't be in the same place it was when the probe left.

If his geocentric universe were true, no spacecraft could ever have reached its destination, much less returned, since we're all naively programming the probes using a heliocentric / relativistic model.

tnjrp
2011-Oct-25, 10:34 AM
Doh! Obviously NASA engineers are in on the Evolutionist Conspiracy, as are many (all?) scientists but they sow misinformation by ostensibly denying the truth of the fixed Earth!

I'm tempted to call Poe on that site.

Noclevername
2011-Oct-25, 10:37 AM
The thing I find most ironic about this page is that he espouses a "fixed Earth" cosmology in which the Earth never moves, the Sun, planets, and stars all swoop around in circles around Earth. He seems to think most scientists have been "duped" into believing a heliocentric model.

But his entire fantasy revolves around probes sent to Mars and other bodies in the solar system using navigational systems that assume, correctly, that those objects are circling the Sun. And in the case of probes returningto Earth, an added assumption that the Earth won't be in the same place it was when the probe left.

If his geocentric universe were true, no spacecraft could ever have reached its destination, much less returned, since we're all naively programming the probes using a heliocentric / relativistic model.

No doubt he thinks NASA's lying about that too. Y'know, to fuel their heliocentric agenda.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-25, 06:01 PM
The thing I find most ironic about this page is that he espouses a "fixed Earth" cosmology in which the Earth never moves, the Sun, planets, and stars all swoop around in circles around Earth. He seems to think most scientists have been "duped" into believing a heliocentric model.

But his entire fantasy revolves around probes sent to Mars and other bodies in the solar system using navigational systems that assume, correctly, that those objects are circling the Sun. And in the case of probes returningto Earth, an added assumption that the Earth won't be in the same place it was when the probe left.

If his geocentric universe were true, no spacecraft could ever have reached its destination, much less returned, since we're all naively programming the probes using a heliocentric / relativistic model.
Well, they actually could, but the physical laws of such a model would be hellishly complicated, including time dependent forces and whatnot.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-25, 08:58 PM
Well, they actually could, but the physical laws of such a model would be hellishly complicated, including time dependent forces and whatnot.

Incredibly so. Some computational astronomy, such as for ephemerides, uses a geocentric model. The positions of planets in right ascension and declination are computed as independent harmonic functions of time. The functions are exceptionally complex, having up to 100 terms each for right ascension and declination.

But no one claims these formulas model the underlying physics. They are merely elaborate curve-fitting solutions. They model the planet's observation, not its behavior.

Ufonaut99
2011-Oct-26, 02:03 AM
That sounds like incredibly hard work. Why is that approach chosen, instead of calculating each planet's location in 3D and calculating where it appears from Earth? (I'm guessing error accumulation over time?)

cjameshuff
2011-Oct-26, 04:23 AM
That sounds like incredibly hard work. Why is that approach chosen, instead of calculating each planet's location in 3D and calculating where it appears from Earth? (I'm guessing error accumulation over time?)

You can compute locations and velocities in constant time instead of running a big simulation from some epoch to the desired time, and for many signal analysis tasks (for looking at things like long term stability, resonances, trends in system evolution, etc), starting out with harmonic functions will save you a lot of work...you'd otherwise basically be doing curve fitting/Fourier transforms/etc on the fly on top of doing the numeric simulation.

MaDeR
2011-Nov-02, 11:28 PM
I'm tempted to call Poe on that site.
Unfortunately it is not. I knew about this little gem for very long ago and it is as authentic as, say, Time Cube.

In fact, first word of title already explains it all. Only in certain circles you use word "evolutionists".

tnjrp
2011-Nov-03, 08:45 AM
A Poe site would definitely use the word "evolutionist", I think. It would be too telling to use the term "evilutionist" although I do think some bona fide religious fundies sometimes do use that as well.